You’re missing the point. Tools that are easier to use enable people to do more. You’re stuck on tech specs when those are not relevant. Macs make it easier to get things done and be more productive. That’s what most people care about. Name any computer and there is something it cannot technically do. That isn’t the point.

You’ve still missed the point. I can choose one aspect of any device and ‘prove’ it doesn’t measure up. Your hang up on tech specs is meaningless in the big picture. The point here is about getting more done and being more productive and Apple products knock it out of the park on that metric. Making our tools easier to use while keeping specs at or near good enough is what matters. The best tech specs in the world won’t help you be more productive if other aspects of the device are hard to use. So in fact tech specs alone do not allow you to do more.

Playing to most is by definition playing to average, not “testing the impossible”.

If you are doing finite element analysis, you need horsepower. If you’re doing complex numerics, you need horsepower. If you have a complex many body problem that’s gravitationally bound and you want to know whether the space rock is going to hit earth and where, you need horsepower. Or you need what you have code for. CUDA, for instance.

Everything you just listed off can be done on a Mac without any trouble. The differences in “horsepower” between affordable consumer computers is not significant enough to bother discussing. If you do need maximum horsepower buy a Mac Pro. If that isn’t enough then you need to book time on a super computer.

I agree with the other commenter that made the point about what the personal part of a computer is. It is not the technical specifications. It is what you are able to do with it.

What ca be more personal than tailoring a computer to your own requirements?

And ,no, they are most definitely not affordable relative to what you can do with other machines of its price class. This is even without getting into exchanging parts within machines. The facts don’t back you up.

“What ca be more personal than tailoring a computer to your own requirements?”

Creating something with said computer is by definition more personal and Apple products deliver on that more than any others.

“they are most definitely not affordable relative to what you can do with other machines of its price class.”

The differences in compute power and price aren’t significant enough to discuss. That’s a cheap talking point and you know it. The accessibility, ease of use, and how the Mac gets out of your way so you can get creative is much more important than any technical specification.

You’re just arguing about technical specifications because that is the only way you can claim Apple’s computers aren’t personal. My advice to you is to get out of the 1990s and join the rest of us in the present.

You accuse others of denying facts and you literally made up your own definition of a word.

Every computer has limitations. A less good user experience can easily be more of a limitation than any technical specification. Your Windows machine that you claim will blow away your half decade old Mac Pro could easily make you less productive overall. How empowering! Wow I’m getting less done but look at that benchmark number! Yay?

“And still it’s my choice of test for the impossible. Choose your own test, they failed mine.”

Uhhh yes, that is the point I was making. I can come up with different tests that cause any computer you can name to fail. You came up with a test that allows you to trumpet your point of view.

“The more flexible computer is by definition the one more able to be tailored to one’s want or needs.”

Many would say the computer that delivers the best user experience and ease of use is more flexible. You say the technical specifications make a computer more flexible. That’s your opinion and that’s all it is.

It is your fault, for not being a reasonable person who can admit that your personal opinion is not a fact or mathematical truth.

I can demonstrate easily how weak your argument is. Which car is more powerful, a Toyota Prius or a Dodge Charger? Based on technical specifications the Charger wins. The Charger also wins on the ability to modify the car. The Prius is much more locked down as a hybrid. It has to be in order to function. Can we say it is a fact that a Dodge Charger is more powerful than a Toyota Prius? No we can’t. It depends on what you mean by powerful. The Prius is far more reliable and will break down and require service much much much less. The Prius will save you far more money both in operating costs and fuel costs. The Prius is easier to park. The Prius has better base level driver assist technology. The Prius will still be on the road taking you places when the Charger is in the junkyard. I could go on. It is your personal opinion about what more powerful means that shapes your answer to the question. Same goes for which computer is more powerful or flexible or better etc.

“Tell you what… I “thought different” and they failed.”

That’s your personal opinion again. You chose a point of view and a test that guaranteed Apple’s failure. For many other people Apple is not failing. For many people Apple computers are the most flexible and it is other manufacturers that are impeding, not Apple.

“My personal opinion is just that personal. What do you think I’ve been saying.”

No, you’ve been saying “fact” and “mathematical truth”. Only now have you admitted it was opinion all along and that is what I have been saying, not you.

“Fact: Removing upgradability made the Mac less valuable to many.”

To many, not all. Many others find value in other aspects of the Mac and upgradability doesn’t matter at all. In fact there can be more value for many people in a more locked down machine. Not for you, but that’s the personal aspect again. Other people want different things.

“Fact: A machine that is more adaptable to an individual’s wants and needs is more “personal”.”

Yes, but those wants and needs don’t necessarily revolve around technical specifications. What is personal for you is not the same as for others. The least you could do is respect that.

“Fact: The impossible task I chose is one they don’t currently deliver.”

Yes, interesting how you phrased that, “the impossible task I chose”. I’ve said many times I could come up with multiple impossible tasks for any machine you can name. That’s just a silly game you’re playing so you can say Apple computers aren’t good enough. Apple devices aren’t good enough for you, that’s all. Apple computers are fantastic for many others. All I’m asking is that you respect other people. Is that an impossible task for you?

Mathematical Fact: Those that don’t mind non-upgradability are already served, those that could be better served with upgradability constitute a super set, a larger set. Argue with math all you like, you will lose. It is you that is disrespecting the larger set of people, I’m disrespecting no one since I don’t insist they upgrade even if able to. You however are disrespecting people that want to be able to upgrade but can’t.

“Mathematical Fact: Those that don’t mind non-upgradability are already served, those that could be better served with upgradability constitute a super set, a larger set.”

You’ve forgotten that you can’t make a machine more upgradable by waving a magic wand. You have to change the machine, how it is designed, how it is built, the components, the engineering, the entire manufacturing process and the scale of that process. All of this impacts the machine, what it costs, how recyclable it is, how reliable it is, how long it will last, how it functions, etc. You are fundamentally changing the machine from the machine many people want to the machine you want.

Your argument depends on there being no difference between the two types of machines. That just isn’t true. You’re the one arguing against “mathematical fact” and losing badly.

“There is one type of machine that satisfies both types of users. The upgradable machine.”

There you go waving your magic wand again. You’re living in a fantasy where computers can magically be made more upgradable with no impact on the machine, the manufacturer, or the user. In your fantasy world you are correct and your math does work but in the real world you are hopelessly wrong. What you are fantasizing about cannot be done.

You are also missing the issue of security. I would have thought a so-called power user would have realized that the trend towards bespoke locked down components and machines is driven in part by security. A modular machine that is more upgradable is by nature less secure than a machine that cannot be altered as much. There’s that pesky math again that you are arguing with and losing badly.

Do you actually know anything about how computers work or are you just pretending to be an expert? It seems like you don’t really know very much at all.

So sorry. It is you who continues to engage in magical thinking and argue against simple math. If you didn’t need to say more then you wouldn’t say more. Don’t you have any impulse control? Hmm, magical thinking AND impulse control problems. Those are problems children have. Interesting.

It isn’t just Apple making machines that are less upgradable than a decade ago. You just said “Making a machine less upgradable is the new thing”. So are you aware of this industry trend or aren’t you? Make up your mind.

Big baskets do hold a little or a lot but there are many good reasons why people need and prefer little baskets and many situations where the little basket is superior. I wonder if you realize that by using the basket analogy you’re admitting that a machine cannot be made more upgradable without impacting the machine, the manufacturer, and the user.

Your entire argument depends on there being no difference between a more upgradable machine and a more locked down bespoke machine. You just used an analogy which is based on big baskets and little baskets. Even a child can tell there’s a difference between a big basket and a little basket.

You need to watch some Sesame Street reruns to realize that “new” comes after “old”. Talk about destroying their own argument! For the last decade Apple has been removing upgradability. That’s the new norm for them.

I don’t think you have comprehension issues, maybe you do, more likely your a sycophant. My argument was based on the clear superiority and overall inclusiveness of the upgradable machine over the non-uogradable one. The exact opposite of what you claim you understood. thank you

“For the last decade Apple has been removing upgradability. That’s the new norm for them.”

That’s exactly what I said. It is the industry as well, not just Apple. The trend is towards more tightly integrated and less upgradable machines. Most manufacturers are moving this way. So we can dispense with the idea that it is just Apple.

“My argument was based on the clear superiority and overall inclusiveness of the upgradable machine over the non-uogradable one.”

This is so easy to prove wrong.

To make a machine more upgradable and modular you must use more connectors and less wholly integrated soldered/welded components. Every connection is a weak point that can flex and degrade. Every connection can also be a source of signal loss which degrades wireless capability. Modules with connections take up more space also so I hope you like thick heavy laptops.

A more upgradable modular machine cannot be sealed as well so it is less resistant to moisture and dust. Then we have the issue of antenna interference once again because the machine is not as well sealed as it could be.

Next we have the issue of software and hardware support. Who is on the hook for supporting problems caused by a user upgrading components that aren’t fully compatible with the OS or some other hardware component in the machine? In a corporate environment who pays for the additional support that is necessary?

In laptops what about battery safety? Batteries need strong cases to protect them. The more easily you can open a machine to swap components the less secure the case is and the less safe your battery is from damage.

We still have the issue of security. A model where components are easily swapped leaves many security holes in the entire production chain.

The less upgradable machine is superior in so many ways. Do you know anything about how computers are made? Each type of machine has pros and cons. It depends what you need as a user. However it is demonstrably false to say “the clear superiority and overall inclusiveness of the upgradable machine over the non-uogradable one.”

Your entire argument is nothing but fantasy and magical thinking.

“Feel free to argue with facts. It’s fun to watch.”

This is your lame way of avoiding the sad fact that your argument is based on fantasy. The reality is you’re not having fun at all and you are desperate to end this discussion so you don’t have to confront the truth that you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

You have issues discerning temporal differences yet again. It is I that said old and new. My point remains you’re still stuck.

Now on to other issues…
I didn’t realize that all machines before non upgradability were a scourge upon reliability and interference. I guess that applies to desktops too. The only thing non upgradability makes better is the manufacturers’ role. Upgradability and reliability are not mutually exclusive. But flail away…

I see you’re giving up and attempting to move the discussion to other topics. Sorry. You’ve already revealed that you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Trying to change the subject won’t help you.

I’m aware you can’t admit when you’re wrong, but thanks for admitting that also. You don’t seem to understand how much you’re admitting when you flail around like this.

“It is also you that brought up the new subject to which I was replying.”

You literally just said “Now on to other issues” in the reply you’re talking about. That means you tried to switch the subject.

I’ve been talking about one thing, and that has been educating you about how computers work to help you understand that your idea of just making all computers more upgradable is a fantasy.

I’ve had to provide you with more and more detail as we’ve discussed the issue because it is clear you don’t have the first clue. I understand why you think I brought up a new subject. I was just giving you more detail about how computers work and since you don’t understand the topic you thought it was a new topic. It wasn’t.

You are truly hopeless. Enjoy your magical thinking. It will be interesting to see what reply you craft and what more you reveal about yourself.

Sorry, I said no such thing. When you have to resort to lying that’s a good sign you’ve lost the argument.

All I’ve done is point out that making a machine upgradable has a significant impact on how that machine works. You are entitled to your personal opinion that an upgradable machine is superior but that is just your personal opinion. It is not fact. A less upgradable machine has many advantages which are valuable to other people. Neither type of machine is objectively superior. Each type has pros and cons. You are ignoring or denying the shortcomings of a more upgradable machine. I’ve gone over in detail all these shortcomings and you haven’t addressed a single one. That’s your magical thinking in full swing for all to see.

The only failure here is with your thinking process, which is that of a small child.

“The less upgradable machine only makes the manufacturers’ life better. It’s frankly the lazy way out.”

Both of these statements are false and I have already provided detailed information that proves both statements are false. You are choosing to ignore facts which don’t support your personal opinion. That is magical thinking, much like a child.

I can’t wait to see what fantasy you reply with next. Please enlighten us all with your magical wisdom oh blessed child.

Uhhh, yes, the things I said don’t disprove… the things I said rolls eyes. Okay, I can see the baby is very upset now. Clearly you need to have the last word or you’ll just keep crying. Go ahead now, get it all out, you’ll feel better. Bye bye baby.

If Apple is preaching to the choir they have a funny way of showing it, most of their commercials feature African-Americans and minority women, hard to imagine more than 10% of Mac owners fit this demographic. Maybe it’s supposed to make everyone else feel more virtuous?

IBM
In just over a year, IBM passed its original goal of deploying 50,000 Macs, and is now at over 100,000 Macs and continuing to grow.
GE
GE announced in October that it would promote Macs as the desktop computer of choice for its global workforce of 330,000 employees. At this point, thousands of Macs have been deployed.
Concentrix
Business services company Concentrix has deployed more than 18,000 Macs to employees.
Oath
Oath, the collection of media and technology brands owned by Verizon, has deployed more than 15,000 Macs.
SAP
Multinational enterprise software corporation SAP has deployed more than 14,000 Macs to employees.
Capital One
Banking company Capital One has deployed more than 12,000 Macs.